TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....costs were imposed on the consumer and competition in the industry was reduced. The MRTP Commission formed a prima facie opinion that the alleged practice was a restrictive trade practice as defined under section 33(1)( d) and 33(1)(j) of the MRTP Act. Consequently in exercise of its powers under regulation 18 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 ('MRTP Regulations'), the MRTP Commission ordered a preliminary investigation into the matter by the Director General (Investigation & Registration) ['DG(I&R)'] and further directed that the copy of the information/material collected should be submitted to the Commission within sixty days thereafter. The case was registered as 'Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No. 5 of 2009' ('RTPE'). 3. On 27-4-2009, the Office of the DG(I&R) sent letters to the petitioners asking them to furnish information and documents to enable the DG(I&R) to undertake the necessary investigation. The subject-matter of the said communication was "Restrictive Trade Practices - Investigation under section 11(1) of the MRTP Act, 1969." The petitioner-Inter-Globe Aviation Ltd. ('IAL') replied to the said letter on 29-5-2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 6. The Court has heard the submissions of Mr. N.K. Kaul, the learned Senior counsel as well as Mr. Amit Kapur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 7. The first submission is that the CCI had no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with RTPE No. 5 of 2009 because this was a matter pending before the erstwhile MRTP Commission. It is submitted that under section 66(3) of the CA all matters which were pending before the MRTP Commission have to be transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal ('CAT') whereas in the instant case, the matter was erroneously transferred by the DG(I&R) to the CCI under section 66(6) of the CA. The submission is that since the MRTP Commission had suo motu taken cognizance of the alleged restrictive trade practice under section 11(1) of the MRTP Act, and further directed the DG(I&R) to investigate and submit a report to it, this was a matter pending before the MRTP Commission. Therefore, even if the investigation by the DG(I&R) was incomplete on the date of the repeal of the MRTP Act followed by the notification of the amended section 66 of the CA, the matter had to be necessarily placed before the CAT for further directions to the DG(I&R)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (b )any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed; or (c)any penalty, confiscation or punishment incurred in respect of any contravention under the Act so repealed; or (d )any proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, confiscation or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, confiscation or punishment may be imposed or made as if that Act had not been repealed. (2) On the dissolution of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the person appointed as the Chairman of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and every other person appointed as Member and Director General of Investigation and Registration, Additional, Joint, Deputy, or Assistant Directors General of Investigation and Registration and any officer and other employee of that Commission and holding office as such immediately before such dissolution shall vacate their respective offices and such Chairman and other Members shall be entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Practices Commission, to the Competition Commission of India or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall not entitle such Director General of Investigation and Registration, Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Directors General of Investigation and Registration or any officer or other employee any compensation under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and no such claim shall be entertained by any Court, Tribunal or other authority : Provided also that where the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission has established a provident fund, superannuation, welfare or other fund for the benefit of the Director General of Investigation and Registration, Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Directors General of Investigation and Registration or the officers and other employees employed in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the monies relatable to the officers and other employees whose services have been transferred by or under this Act to the Competition Commission of India or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, shall, out of the monies standing, on the dissolution of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Pract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bill, 2009 receives the assent of the President, shall, on and from that date, stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed. (5) All cases pertaining to unfair trade practices referred to in clause (x) of sub-section (1) of section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (54 of 1969) and pending before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission shall, on the commencement of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009, stand transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of such cases as if they were cases filed under that Act. (6) All investigations or proceedings, other than those relating to unfair trade practices, pending before the Director General of Investigation and Registration on or before the commencement of this Act shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Competition Commission of India, and the Competition Commission of India may conduct or order for conduct of such investigation or proceedings in the manner as it deems fit. (7) All investigations or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on undertook the investigation under section 11(2) of the MRTP Act. Nothing much however turns on this. 10. Once the MRTP Commission directed the DG(I&R) to undertake investigations, the matter could no longer be said to be pending before the MRTP Commission. The investigation undertaken by the DG(I&R) was obviously incomplete and there was no occasion for the DG(I&R) to place any report of investigation before the MRTP Commission in terms of section 11(1) of the MRTP Act. 11. Turning to section 66 of the CA, which is a repeal and savings clause, it appears that the opening words of section 66(3) is "all cases" pending before the MRTP Commission shall, on the commencement of the CAA 2009 stand transferred to the CAT, and "shall be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed." It is plain that only 'cases' which were pending before the MRTP Commission for 'adjudication' as on the date of the repeal of the MRTP Act and the commencement of the CAA 2009 would stand transferred to the CAT for "adjudication". The word "cases" and the word "adjudication" are indicative of the types of matters pendin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings which were pending before the DG(I&R), MRTP Commission as on the date of CAA 2009, whether by way of a reference made to it by the MRTP Commission under section 11(1) or taken up by the DG(I&R) suo motu under section 11(2) of the MRTP Act, would stand transferred to the CCI in terms of section 66(6) of the CA. That is what has happened in the present case. There is, therefore, no illegality in the action of the DG, CCI in transferring the investigation pending before the DG(I&R), MRTP Commission to the CCI. 16. Before concluding this part, it may be observed that the organizational structure which was envisaged under the MRTP Act with the MRTP Commission combining in itself both the inquisitorial and adversarial functions has undergone a significant change in the CA. There is now a two-tier structure with the CCI performing a partly inquisitorial function and a partly quasi-adjudicatory function. The CAT, however, performs an appellate adjudicatory function. The interpretation placed on the provisions by this Court is in light of this altered structure under the CA. 17. It was urged that the CCI was acting unreasonably in declining to provide the petitioners with the i....